Trump supporter claims judge biased towards assaultee

[someoneyouknow]

"This is clearly a political prosecution, and it's a miscarriage of justice," Heimbach told the blog. "I'm not surprised we have a biased system that favors violent and radical leftists instead of holding up justice for everyone."

This statement is from Matthew Heimbach who, at a Trump rally last March, physically attacked three protestors who did nothing more than stand with posters with messages against then candidate Trump. Heimbach even admitted attacking the three women saying he helped "the crowd drive out one of the women."

Apparently this white supremacist believes people who peacefully protest are the problem, not the people who violently attack them. He has expressed no remorse for his assault or his lack of intelligence.

Heimbach and two others face charges of assault and battery while Trump himself faces charges of incitement to riot, negligence, gross negligence and recklessness.

The negligence claims arise from the plaintiffs' allegations that Trump knew his supporters would attack protesters. In particular, Trump's directive to eject a black woman was reckless, given the presence of a white nationalist group in the audience, the complaint says.

Remember, if you assault someone and the judge rules against you, it's the judge's bias towards the victim which is the problem.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/02/politics/donald-trump-lawsuit-incite-violence-kentucky-rally/index.html

 

[Wrong Element]

Usually it's conservatives who complain that the system doesn't care enough about victims.

 

[someoneyouknow]

UPDATE

Con artist is now being countersued in this scintillating case of, "You told me to do it! No I didn't."

As we've seen, Heimbach isn't the brightest bulb in the box when he claims a judge is biased against him for his attack on peaceful protestors. However, that same dim bulb has found the wits to countersue the con artist claiming he acted on the con artist's authority to throw out the peaceful protestors.

In his court filing, Heimbach said he “relied on Trump’s authority to have disruptive persons removed and that Trump was legally within his rights to have other attendees assist in defending their constitutional rights against ‘protesters.’”

It should be noted Heimbach doesn't explain what constitutional right he and others were protecting when they were violating someone else's rights. At last check, there's no right not to be offended or not to have to listen to someone else's different point of view, something he has clearly done to others without incident.

Another defendant at the rally, Alvin Bamberger, filed a counter claim on Friday, saying that he acted on Trump’s “urging and inspiration.”

For his part the con artist is claiming he is immune from the lawsuit because he's the president and they're not even though at the time he ordered the attack on the protestors he wasn't president.

The blatantly biased judge in the case has said there’s ample evidence that could be seen as supporting allegations that the protesters’ injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump’s actions. The judge also noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/matthew-heimbach-countersues-trump-saying-he-urged-protesters-removal-from-rally/

 

[Maidboy]

Knock the crap outta all of 'em!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Usually it's conservatives who complain that the system doesn't care enough about victims.

Are you sure she was a victim? Heimbach is claiming this:

Heimbach, who is representing himself, denied most claims in thе complaint — including allegations that he assaulted Nwanguma. Instead, he wrote that protesters “provoked a response” while attempting tо “disrupt a free assemblу аnd campaign event.”

In a blog post after thе rallу, Heimbach admitted tо “helping thе crowd drive out one оf thе women who had been pushing, shoving, barking, аnd screaming at thе attendees for thе better part оf an hour.”


In other words he is claiming the so-called victim was committing assaultive and disruptive behavior. If this is the case, and I'm sure there is evidence, one way or the other, Heimbach's actions were justified.